10k UC overpayment

Medusa80

Newcad said:

Fair enough, coincidences do happen.

However the advice is still the same.

There should be both an overpayment for the old address and an underpayment for the new address.

As you say you get housing element at LHA then the amounts would be the same - (at the most different by a month depending just when in your AP you moved).

The DWP could use the underpayment to offset the overpayment, but don't have to.

Insead they can say with one hand that you have a debt for the old place, and then with the other hand give you a pile of backpay for the new place. You would then have the money to pay the debt.

If what you have told us is the full story then the DWP can't have it both ways. They can't say it was paid for the wrong property and want it back then refuse to pay it for the right one.

Thanks for the reply. I asked about backdating the rent for the new property but they refused. I am just hoping this tribunal goes in my favour. 

Medusa80

Newcad said:

Just reading back and this statement in the original post struck me:

Medusa80 said:

.. was private renting after fleeing domestic abuse. I moved to another place with help of council ...

That wouldn't have been "Emergency Accommodation" from the Council would it?

I'd been assuming not if you are still living there, and as you were already out of the abuse situation and living in the 'private rental', but if it was council "Emergency Accomodation" then that could have a significant bearing here.

When I fled, the council (Somerset who are nearly bankrupt) offered me a refuge but said only one was miles away from family so they put me up for two weeks in a b and b and then after paying for hotels myself I found a place up North. It was constant family court and I then had a stalker and the council helped me move by paying a deposit on another private rental. 

Alice_Holt

Medusa80 said:

Newcad said:

Fair enough, coincidences do happen.

However the advice is still the same.

There should be both an overpayment for the old address and an underpayment for the new address.

As you say you get housing element at LHA then the amounts would be the same - (at the most different by a month depending just when in your AP you moved).

The DWP could use the underpayment to offset the overpayment, but don't have to.

Insead they can say with one hand that you have a debt for the old place, and then with the other hand give you a pile of backpay for the new place. You would then have the money to pay the debt.

If what you have told us is the full story then the DWP can't have it both ways. They can't say it was paid for the wrong property and want it back then refuse to pay it for the right one.

. I am just hoping this tribunal goes in my favour. 

      For the best chance at tribunal you really need to participate. 
      Paper tribunals are never likely to be as successful.

     You also need to submit all evidence to the tribunal (esp about notifying UC), and it will help in your submission to ask the tribunal to consider some of the points made in this thread.

    Is this now your intention ?  

Newcad

Medusa80 said:

Newcad said:

Just reading back and this statement in the original post struck me:

Medusa80 said:

.. was private renting after fleeing domestic abuse. I moved to another place with help of council ...

That wouldn't have been "Emergency Accommodation" from the Council would it?

I'd been assuming not if you are still living there, and as you were already out of the abuse situation and living in the 'private rental', but if it was council "Emergency Accomodation" then that could have a significant bearing here.

When I fled, the council (Somerset who are nearly bankrupt) offered me a refuge but said only one was miles away from family so they put me up for two weeks in a b and b and then after paying for hotels myself I found a place up North. It was constant family court and I then had a stalker and the council helped me move by paying a deposit on another private rental. 

Thanks, that's very important and does put a new light on things.

The 2 weeks BnB would have been "Emergency Accomodation" and would have been paid for by the Council.

That would/should have stopped the Housing Element of UC, which would then need to be reinstated once you started paying for accomodation again yourself.

I suspect that is why you were advised to withdraw your first appeal - because you would have been appealing the wrong thing.
The "Emergency Accomodation" was a special circumstance and meant that it was more than just a change of address that was involved.
However you should then have gone on to make another appeal about the right things.

The overpayment is an overpayment for an address that you were not living at so were not entitled to Housing Element for, you clearly agree that you were not living there. So there is no argument about that and nothing to be appealed there.

What you do need to appeal now is that UC should now pay for the addresses where you were living and paying rent, for all the time that you were living in those addresses whilst claiming UC.
If/when you win that appeal you will have backpayments to come which will allow you to pay back (most of) the overpayment.

So the questions are:

1. Did you inform UC when you moved into the BnB that the council were paying for?
2. Did you inform UC when you started paying for the hotels yourself?
3. Did you inform UC when you moved up North and started paying rent there?
4. Did you inform UC when you later moved to a different flat?

You need to get your dates right for each move, the BnB, the hotels, the first flat, the second flat.
You need as much documentation as possible (eg. the hotel bills, your Tenancy Agreements for the flats, etc).
You need to get as much of that together as possible for any appeal.

And I strongly suggest that you are going to need to get the help of a professional advisor if you haven't already.
You can find advisors local to where you are now by putting your postcode in here: https://advicelocal.uk/find-an-adviser

kaMelo

How I read the timeline.

Their original home and emergency housing in a b&b for which the council would have paid was all prior to moving 'up north'. 

I'm assuming this was when the OP moved into property A, correctly informed UC for which the housing element in question was paid. Some time later the OP then moved to property B but failed to inform UC.

For the whole period in dispute it was UC housing element that was payable

Newcad

That is possible, but I'm reading it as why supply all that information about previous addresses if they aren't relevant to the overpayment?

Even if it is just the 2 flats the overpayment situation and solution are the same.

The overpayment decision for the 'wrong' address is correct so can't be appealed - It's the payments due for the correct address that now need to be MR/Appealed for.

HillStreetBlues

I have read this thread with interest and will touch of issues others poster's comments.
(basing this on B&B to Property A to Property B )

Is this a true CoC insofar as the relevant law?
OP moved into A and supplied proof of liability to pay rent and was paid the HE. The OP is entitled to that payment but to get that payment the OP needs to show proof so it can be checked. The address doesn't matter it could be a grubby flat or Buck House what matters is the the entitlement for HE.

OP moves to property B, the OP should have submitted new tenancy for it to be checked for entitlement, if entitled then HE would still be paid and there's no break in UC.
OP didn't submit new tenancy to be checked, so my thinking is the issue is was OP still entitled to the HE? if so am wondering if it is a true CoC or just simply a change of property. Yes they didn't get to check the OP was entitled, but does that takeaway that entitlement?

If I was appealing, that would be my angle of defence saying my entitlement never changed, just the address, as long as OP can prove entitlement for property B from date of moving in.

Newcad

No it's clear cut, and the liability to pay rent at a particular address does matter.

Benefit law says that in order to be eligible for UC-HE you have to be liable for paying rent at a particular property.

The OP admits that wasn't the case and so was not eligible for HE at the address stated/recorded (they had moved out and no longer liable to pay rent there) - so any HE paid for that address after they had no liability for rent there is an overpayment and recoverable.

That then gives rise to a seperate second issue of not getting HE for the property(ies?) where the OP was liable to pay rent - and that is what now has to be pushed for.

Once you see that in the benefits law they are two seperate (but related) issues it becomes easier to understand what needs to be done to put things 'right'.

HillStreetBlues

Newcad said:

Benefit law says that in order to be eligible for UC-HE you have to be liable for paying rent at a particular property

Can you link to that relevant benefit law, as it would help the OP to decide on a defence. Also I like to learn more by reading statute / case law.

Spoonie_Turtle

HillStreetBlues said:

Newcad said:

Benefit law says that in order to be eligible for UC-HE you have to be liable for paying rent at a particular property

Can you link to that relevant benefit law, as it would help the OP to decide on a defence. Also I like to learn more by reading statute / case law.

Happy to be corrected as always, but I think it's here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/25
Paragraph 3 deals with liability